I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

It isn't clear to me either. Imagine this world and baby rape but no God. Is it morally objectively wrong ? Ok lets assume it isn't, cause as some will claim no God no objective morality.

Take that exact same world but add an invisible person who is all powerful and all knowing non physical...........does baby rape now suddenly become objectively wrong with the extra addition of this person ? On the surface no.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes? The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

The thought process behind such an idea is simple. In order for something to be objective, there must be a high entity that decides what is right and what is wrong.

Your preference for morals may differ from mine. Who decides authoritatively what is right and what is wrong? It couldn't be you or I because that would relate to our individual views on morality which would be relative or subjective. Therefore, to an objective moralist it must be a higher entity or entities that decides objectively right and wrong.

The problem for the objective moralist is clear, does the higher entity assert what is "right" and "wrong?" Most religious documents are written by men so I don't think the higher entity is asserting itself in such incantations.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

The thought process behind such an idea is simple. In order for something to be objective, there must be a high entity that decides what is right and what is wrong.

Though I do not believe in this, and there is no evidence to support it, what if there was a natural force we are not yet aware of? Like how entropy leads things to disorder, this force leads things towards "good". Our actions that support this and help guide it along would fall into what is objectively right, what actions we take that go against this force would be objectively wrong.

At 12/25/2014 6:44:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:Though I do not believe in this, and there is no evidence to support it, what if there was a natural force we are not yet aware of?

That is why I mentioned a higher entity or entities.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

It's just another mythology, like the humanism and "equality" narrative of atheists. There's no logic behind it, simply assumptions.

At 12/25/2014 6:44:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:Though I do not believe in this, and there is no evidence to support it, what if there was a natural force we are not yet aware of?

That is why I mentioned a higher entity or entities.

I said "natural force", similar to natural laws, entropy, etc. which exist under materialism. That means a force that is not god, that could one day be discovered and put down as a scientific law, have scientific theories made, etc.

At 12/25/2014 6:44:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:Though I do not believe in this, and there is no evidence to support it, what if there was a natural force we are not yet aware of?

That is why I mentioned a higher entity or entities.

I said "natural force", similar to natural laws, entropy, etc. which exist under materialism. That means a force that is not god, that could one day be discovered and put down as a scientific law, have scientific theories made, etc.

Is "natural force" not an entity?

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

It's just another mythology, like the humanism and "equality" narrative of atheists. There's no logic behind it, simply assumptions.

Thank you for not answering the question, and instead ridiculing the topic. I am trying to have a productive thread.

At 12/25/2014 6:44:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:Though I do not believe in this, and there is no evidence to support it, what if there was a natural force we are not yet aware of?

That is why I mentioned a higher entity or entities.

I said "natural force", similar to natural laws, entropy, etc. which exist under materialism. That means a force that is not god, that could one day be discovered and put down as a scientific law, have scientific theories made, etc.

Is "natural force" not an entity?

It could be. Entropy is not an entity. Gravity is not an entity. Electromagnetism is not an entity. What if there was a "Moral Force" out there (that, like the other things listed, is not an entity)?

It could be. Entropy is not an entity. Gravity is not an entity. Electromagnetism is not an entity. What if there was a "Moral Force" out there (that, like the other things listed, is not an entity)?

It would have to have the capacity to determine objective morals of "right" and "wrong." I doubt a universal consistency can be measured to determine objective morals.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

You still haven't shown how "God" is a necessary precondition for objective morality, you just put the burden on the other side........well shown me how without God.

It isn't clear to me either. Imagine this world and baby rape but no God. Is it morally objectively wrong ? Ok lets assume it isn't, cause as some will claim no God no objective morality.

Take that exact same world but add an invisible person who is all powerful and all knowing non physical...........does baby rape now suddenly become objectively wrong with the extra addition of this person ? On the surface no.

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Maybe you should examine the claim about objective morality and God and put it under scrutiny rather than just assume well no God no objective morality.

Peter

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

It could be. Entropy is not an entity. Gravity is not an entity. Electromagnetism is not an entity. What if there was a "Moral Force" out there (that, like the other things listed, is not an entity)?

It would have to have the capacity to determine objective morals of "right" and "wrong."

Why would it have to be able to do that?Think of it like this, entropy brings things to disorder, yet things can become more ordered.If this "Moral Force" tries to bring things to more "good", then things can bring it away from that ("bad").It does not take much energy to bring something to a state of more disorder, but takes a lot more energy to bring it to a state of order.There could be something similar with "good" and "bad".What is "good" just so happens to be what the force is trying to accomplish, and what is "bad" is the opposite.

Why would it have to be able to do that?Think of it like this, entropy brings things to disorder, yet things can become more ordered.If this "Moral Force" tries to bring things to more "good", then things can bring it away from that ("bad").It does not take much energy to bring something to a state of more disorder, but takes a lot more energy to bring it to a state of order.There could be something similar with "good" and "bad".What is "good" just so happens to be what the force is trying to accomplish, and what is "bad" is the opposite.

Then it would not be objective, correct? Who would determine what is "good" and what is "bad" according to the "moral force?" Using the moral force you already have an assumption of "good" and "bad" so it would not be objective. To state what the moral force is doing is not objective.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

Why would it have to be able to do that?Think of it like this, entropy brings things to disorder, yet things can become more ordered.If this "Moral Force" tries to bring things to more "good", then things can bring it away from that ("bad").It does not take much energy to bring something to a state of more disorder, but takes a lot more energy to bring it to a state of order.There could be something similar with "good" and "bad".What is "good" just so happens to be what the force is trying to accomplish, and what is "bad" is the opposite.

Then it would not be objective, correct?

How so?

Who would determine what is "good" and what is "bad" according to the "moral force?"

Loaded question, you assume that there has to be a being/entity that determines if something is good or bad.

Using the moral force you already have an assumption of "good" and "bad" so it would not be objective.

How so? Gravity is an objective fact (things tend to be pulled to things with a higher mass), entropy is an objective fact (things tend to go to a state of more disorder), so the Moral Force could also be considered an objective fact, and therefore you could have objective morality. We just would not yet know, without discovering the force and what actions impact it in what ways, if something would be "good" or "bad".

You have the BOP, not I. Was it not you who suggested that it was objective? Therefore you must prove it.

Loaded question, you assume that there has to be a being/entity that determines if something is good or bad.

No I didn't, now you are straw-manning my position. Please inform me where I stated my beliefs or assumptions on an entity? I have only offered my opinion on what others understand how this entity or entities would function. I have only offered two opinions thus far, that of which you have disputed neither of them.

How so? Gravity is an objective fact (things tend to be pulled to things with a higher mass), entropy is an objective fact (things tend to go to a state of more disorder), so the Moral Force could also be considered an objective fact, and therefore you could have objective morality. We just would not yet know, without discovering the force and what actions impact it in what ways, if something would be "good" or "bad".

You have yet to offer any measures of objective morality. As I stated previously, you will not find any appropriate measures to arrive at a consistency.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

You have the BOP, not I. Was it not you who suggested that it was objective? Therefore you must prove it.

I think how I described gravity and entropy being objective being similar to how this hypothetical Moral Force might work does show that it is objective.

Loaded question, you assume that there has to be a being/entity that determines if something is good or bad.

No I didn't, now you are straw-manning my position. Please inform me where I stated my beliefs or assumptions on an entity? I have only offered my opinion on what others understand how this entity or entities would function. I have only offered two opinions thus far, that of which you have disputed neither of them.

I will quote you, "Who would determine what is "good" and what is "bad" according to the "moral force?""

Including the word "who" makes it appear like a loaded question.

How so? Gravity is an objective fact (things tend to be pulled to things with a higher mass), entropy is an objective fact (things tend to go to a state of more disorder), so the Moral Force could also be considered an objective fact, and therefore you could have objective morality. We just would not yet know, without discovering the force and what actions impact it in what ways, if something would be "good" or "bad".

You have yet to offer any measures of objective morality. As I stated previously, you will not find any appropriate measures to arrive at a consistency.

Define "measures".

I also am only proposing a hypothetical to challenge the first premise of the objective moral argument (that objective morality can only exist if there is a god). I do not actually think that there is a Moral Force, but it is a hypothesis that makes the Objective Moral argument void.

I think how I described gravity and entropy being objective being similar to how this hypothetical Moral Force might work does show that it is objective.

Therefore as I suggested before you have yet to show it is objective.

I also am only proposing a hypothetical to challenge the first premise of the objective moral argument (that objective morality can only exist if there is a god). I do not actually think that there is a Moral Force, but it is a hypothesis that makes the Objective Moral argument void.

I understand. Far as I am concerned we could be discussing the dream you had last night. It has no relevance to me unless substantiated by some evidence or study. I know where you are going but this is clearly going nowhere far as I am concerned.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

I think how I described gravity and entropy being objective being similar to how this hypothetical Moral Force might work does show that it is objective.

Therefore as I suggested before you have yet to show it is objective.

What, then, is your definition of objective? In what way is the hypothetical Moral Force not as objective as gravity or entropy?

I also am only proposing a hypothetical to challenge the first premise of the objective moral argument (that objective morality can only exist if there is a god). I do not actually think that there is a Moral Force, but it is a hypothesis that makes the Objective Moral argument void.

I understand. Far as I am concerned we could be discussing the dream you had last night. It has no relevance to me unless substantiated by some evidence or study. I know where you are going but this is clearly going nowhere far as I am concerned.

At 12/25/2014 8:20:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:What, then, is your definition of objective? In what way is the hypothetical Moral Force not as objective as gravity or entropy?

I am not doing your work for you. It is an equivocation to compare the moral force to gravity and entropy since you have not substantiated any evidence to support the moral force's existence.You have the burden of proof since you are making an assertion.

If it is going nowhere, then why have you continued to respond?

Is this not obvious? I did not know what your intention was until you stated:"I also am only proposing a hypothetical to challenge the first premise of the objective moral argument ."

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

This is the last response unless you intend to use evidence to support your assertions.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

At 12/25/2014 8:20:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:What, then, is your definition of objective? In what way is the hypothetical Moral Force not as objective as gravity or entropy?

I am not doing your work for you. It is an equivocation to compare the moral force to gravity and entropy since you have not substantiated any evidence to support the moral force's existence.You have the burden of proof since you are making an assertion.

Does that not mean that I can say that the first premise of the objective moral argument is flawed since you would have to provide evidence for a god (in order for there to be support for the god part of the first premise), but the argument is to provide evidence for a god (which means it is circular)?

If it is going nowhere, then why have you continued to respond?

Is this not obvious? I did not know what your intention was until you stated:"I also am only proposing a hypothetical to challenge the first premise of the objective moral argument ."

My OP said I do not subscribe to an objective morality.I even said when I proposed the Moral Force that I do not believe in it.

At 12/25/2014 8:32:35 PM, DarthVitiosus wrote:

At 12/25/2014 8:20:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:

This is the last response unless you intend to use evidence to support your assertions.

You seem to be mistaken, I am not trying to assert the existence of the Moral Force, I am simply showing that the first premise of the Objective Moral argument is not sound.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Nothing would exist without our Creator so there's no purpose to say whether morality is objective or subjective. Morality isn't the answer to life anyway. People who think they're good die as well as people who think they're better than the good people.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Nothing would exist without our Creator so there's no purpose to say whether morality is objective or subjective. Morality isn't the answer to life anyway. People who think they're good die as well as people who think they're better than the good people.

Okay,BOG, you need to start providing evidence for your claims. Evidence that can be verifiable, testable, formulated, etc.

You might think that you are a Saint that has all this knowledge and that we should just listen to you, but you have not provided evidence that you are a Saint.

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Nothing would exist without our Creator so there's no purpose to say whether morality is objective or subjective. Morality isn't the answer to life anyway. People who think they're good die as well as people who think they're better than the good people.

Okay,BOG, you need to start providing evidence for your claims. Evidence that can be verifiable, testable, formulated, etc.

You might think that you are a Saint that has all this knowledge and that we should just listen to you, but you have not provided evidence that you are a Saint.

None of God's people can prove that they exist or that God exists. Ask any physicist who understands the consciousness;

Here's one physicist who understands what the consciousness is. However, He doesn't know our Creator so He doesn't believe that the consciousness was created by Him. Tom believes we are the creators of the consciousness that evolved over a long period of time, even when he tells his audience that time, matter and space are only illusions. Even though Tom Campbell is a liar, he does understand the mind of our Creator is where we all exist as information.